The Financial Times, say some (extremely optimistic) bankers, might be worth something on the order of $1 billion.

For Bloomberg LP, that's couch change.

But some executives within the Bloomberg organization don't want to waste the company's money on a dying print newspaper, the New York Times reports.

Some executives would rather buy a thriving digital business--like, say, LinkedIn.

To these executives, we have two things to say:

First, with respect to the FT, "Right on!"

Don't get snookered by the prestige of an old brand. Your news organization is already vastly more powerful and richer than the Financial Times. If you're desperate to have a print newspaper, then just start printing one. And if you're desperate to have some of the Financial Times' excellent writers and reporters, then just hire them. This will cost you vastly less than $1 billion.

Second, "LinkedIn? Are you kidding?"

LinkedIn is currently valued at $12 billion. Given the growth of the business, as well as the likely profit margin explosion over the next few years, it's probably worth close to that. And to wrest it from the arms of its current shareholders, you would probably have to pay a significant premium--say, 30%-50%. So, buying LinkedIn would probably cost you $16-$18 billion.

A reasonable valuation for Bloomberg LP is probably something on the order of $35 billion.

If you were to buy LinkedIn, therefore, you might have to shell out half of the value of your company.

That is one huge honking bet.

Yes, it might well be a smart bet: LinkedIn would open up a vast new source of revenue and profit for you, and it could be a hell of a distribution engine for your news.

But LinkedIn is a bet you don't have to make. Your core business is fine. You are sitting pretty, cashing in and snickering as the rest of the news world implodes.

So you're seriously going to go out and bet half the company and potentially become AOL-Time Warner 2?